memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Eipy
Welcome to Memory Alpha, ! I've noticed that you've already made some contributions to our database – thank you! We all hope that you'll enjoy our activities here and decide to join our community. If you'd like to learn more about working with the nuts and bolts of Memory Alpha, I have a few links that you might want to check out: * Our policies and guidelines provides links to inform you on what is appropriate for Memory Alpha and what is not. Particular items of note are the and policies, the , our , and guidelines for proper . * includes a basic tutorial about how to use our special wikitext code here on Memory Alpha. * Naming conventions provides guidelines on how to name a new page that you may want to create. * The Manual of Style is an overview of the basic guidelines for how to format and style your articles. * is a list of suggestions that can help you put together an article that might end up on our Featured Articles list someday. * See the user projects page for current projects of our archivists, or help us to reduce the number of stubs. * Look up past changes you have made in your log. * Keep track of your favorite Memory Alpha articles through your very own . * Create your own user page and be contacted on this page, your . One other suggestion: if you're going to make comments on talk pages or make other sorts of comments, please be sure to sign them with four tildes (~~~~) to paste in your user name and the date/time of the comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in our Ten Forward community page. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Memory Alpha!--31dot 21:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC) From Krios Prime - logical inferences In short, those things in the Qo'nos article are different: apocrypha, background, realworld, speculation, and hypotheses. Some of it is total cruft which should be cleaned right out. The particular thing about Krios's takeover sometime during a specific 200-year period is different, because unequivocal facts that directly lead to the conclusion are canon, therefore the conclusion is canon too. I don't know, maybe someone will say they think it should be in italics, treated as background, because it's a conclusion and not an explicit onscreen statement, but I doubt it. We'd have to change all kinds of stuff if our intolerance for "conclusions" were so broad that we couldn't say (for example) that "Veridium oxide is a naturally occurring compound, '''created from base materials veridium and oxygen'", since nobody ever said so, or (another example) that Seven of Nine ''"was assimilated by the Borg in 2356 '''at age six'", because her canon age was pieced together from other canon clues. I grant you, that last one has had disagreements (a case for her being 2 years older was made), but nobody ever advocated treating Seven's age like background. If you look again at the Qo'nos article, I think you can see that every italicized bit falls into one of the above categories, not hard canon. The lengthy one about how ''"Warp 4.5 equates to approximately 30,000,000 kilometers per second (100 times the speed of light), and Archer also mentions that the Enterprise is traveling at this speed. If the Enterprise sustained warp 4.5 for the duration of the four days, Qo'noS should only be about one light year from Earth" is actually indefensible, because MA holds that warp factors/speeds/distanced aren't consistently calculable because the canon around warp factors/speeds/distances is so incoherent. That note (I am guessing) has probably been in there since before we got more on top of both defining and enforcing the policies - in the case of that "Qo'nos distance at warp" item, original research is the relevant one. Regarding that "'logical inferences' are not valid resources", OK, that's not what the link says. If a fact logically follows from something explicit in a valid resource, then that fact is also valid, with the resource being the evidence. If Mars canonically has 2 moons, then logically Mars does not have 3 moons or 0 moons, and if it's necessary to say something like that anywhere, then we cite it by citing where canon says there are 2. Cheers, --TribbleFurSuit 21:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC) ** Awesome! This is perfect, it should make proving my point much easier. Further, what unequivocal facts lead to this conclusion? Please cite them and your indisputable logic. I don't see it. -Eipy 02:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC) **BTB, I don't want you to think that I ignored the rest of your statements. I understand that you can't deny unequivocal facts that lead to conclusions. Nevertheless, when there is conflict over what those facts could mean shouldn't the standard for inclusion as a factual statement be higher? If we were all to agree, "Yes, this makes perfect sense based on the facts available," then I'd see it as valid, but when parties disagree, I think you should demand the direct evidence and allow for a debate on whether it is truly the only explanation. If you had a canon statement that supported this statement, I'd gladly accept it but simply because you believe the facts lead to only one conclusion doesn't seem to make in canon. There could be other conclusions inferred and that is the basis of my point. It's pure speculation with a fancy name. If we assume this to be a single planet then Krios may have willingly joined the Klingon Empire, perhaps they abandoned the planet, perhaps they made a pact with the Klingons, perhaps an uneasy treaty to share the planet? All of these are logical possible conclusions to draw from the fact that the Klingons are on the planet. The statement is pure speculation until direct evidence is presented to prove it. - Eipy 02:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)